Well since we're talking about good ole Tom... here's a link to his site back in the good old days of the 1st P4's:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20001122/p4-04.html
Printable View
Well since we're talking about good ole Tom... here's a link to his site back in the good old days of the 1st P4's:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20001122/p4-04.html
Here's a hint, never read Tom's "analysis". He's a dentist, not an engineer or computer scientist. He does do fairly consistent benchmarking, but ultimately he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Try taking a look at the benchmarks and analyze them yourself.Quote:
Originally posted by akaBruno
Well since we're talking about good ole Tom... here's a link to his site back in the good old days of the 1st P4's:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20001122/p4-04.html
For example, back in the days of the K6 he spent years pushing the idea that there was no need to replace socket 7 and bashed Intel at every opportunity for introducing Slot 1&2. He just didn't understand that accessing your L2 cache over the FSB (which is how socket 7 worked) was a major performance killer. The fact is the K6 would have been a very competitive chip if AMD hadn't crippled it by forcing it into Socket 7, but Tom never did clue into this. Of course despite the Intel bashing for moving away from Socket 7, he never made a peep when AMD did the same thing.
BTW, the P4 has not changed significantly since it was introduced, Prescott is the first major revision. Northwood wasn't much more then a die shrink with some extra cache thrown on, so we are really still looking at the "poor performing" first generation of P4.
The major change that the Northwood brought back to intel was it's overclockability. Enthusiasts/overclockers don't make up a large market share, but... they are the "word of mouth" that can kill a chip's reputation.
Look how the Tbred A almost ruined the Athlon name, when it wouldn't OC. All the while the Northwood's were overclocking like rockets. The Tbred was a late release to begin w/. Add to that, months to revamp it into the Tbred B, and voi la... a drop in AMD's market share and reputation. AMD is always late w/ it's releases e.g. the Hammers are a late release too. Now, there is speculation that they can't even meet the demand on the new Athlon64's. Sheesh... it is a wonder that they're still in business.
true but he hardly writes anything on the site these days let alone benchmark. Most articles are being written by other people. And that is IMHO a huge difference.Quote:
Originally posted by Moridin
Here's a hint, never read Tom's "analysis". He's a dentist, not an engineer or computer scientist. He does do fairly consistent benchmarking, but ultimately he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Try taking a look at the benchmarks and analyze them yourself.
I guess being a dentist pays better
No BS. this is a pointless thread. the only reason why Im posting is because of the very improper title...Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
Is anyone else getting tired of these?
I am in no way a fan of Toms hardware... But **** like this is not warranted in any shape or form. They compared two of the top procs?? How the h e double hockey sticks is that cheating?? They tend not to really have the technical experience they should have in order to make good reviews but **** like this is libel.
Me defending THG is quite rare. But this thread that sna created really erked me
NOW COME ONQuote:
Originally posted by jamesavery22
No BS. this is a pointless thread. the only reason why Im posting is because of the very improper title...
I am in no way a fan of Toms hardware... But **** like this is not warranted in any shape or form. They compared two of the top procs?? How the h e double hockey sticks is that cheating?? They tend not to really have the technical experience they should have in order to make good reviews but **** like this is libel.
Me defending THG is quite rare. But this thread that sna created really erked me
saying the truth might hurt but it is the TRUTH
First. When you compare two products they BOTH MUST be in the market... also, He overclocked the EE upto 3.6 just to add some extra light to it
Second there is NO NO price/Performance judgement at all there should be a PRICE weight function to multiply with every result of each test u cant say a -100$ processor wins 15 times and a +100$ wins 30 times while indeed the AMD is lower in most cases by 5% which is better than the 15% price difference
I loke for the EE presales it is a whooping 900$ and the nonee is 600$ compared to AMDfx 750$ and amd64 450$
ADD TO THIS THE FACT THAT THE INTEL IS NOT EVEN RELEASED
now if thats not CHEATING and SPOLING AMD RELEASE I wonder what do u call it...
In other reviews of TOMS he does the opposite.. for example when he compared some LCD monitors or so there was a superior lcd I remember that he didnt include it in the test cos it was not released yet(1 month or so) while he knew it was better (thats fair)
now in this case he ignores it
I call it CHEATING.. or Intel loving
I prefer INTEL and I am not AMD fan but I can see and say the truth
It is not cheating!
It is released.. But just because its not available in Retail doesnt mean it is not out... I already called a place that has them in stock!!!!!
Second, The chip itself is under $800 which is about the same price as the FX-51 and it performs on par with it...
Not to mention the motherboards for the P4EE is much better then any A64 board out right now due to bugs and problems!
Also, Tom showed a STOCK 3.2EE with a overclocked 3.2EE @ 3.4 and 3.6 to show how well it overclocks and compares!
The overclocked scores was not even included in the final thoughts and conclusions.. So please get your facts straight before quoting toms :)
Its funny to me, how if someone likes the review on Tom`s it the greatest site in the world and if they don`t its the worse site and hes taking money for giving a good review.:D
Conclusion?? ever heared about psycho effect...??? it adds some lightsQuote:
Originally posted by Colossus
It is not cheating!
It is released.. But just because its not available in Retail doesnt mean it is not out... I already called a place that has them in stock!!!!!
Second, The chip itself is under $800 which is about the same price as the FX-51 and it performs on par with it...
Not to mention the motherboards for the P4EE is much better then any A64 board out right now due to bugs and problems!
Also, Tom showed a STOCK 3.2EE with a overclocked 3.2EE @ 3.4 and 3.6 to show how well it overclocks and compares!
The overclocked scores was not even included in the final thoughts and conclusions.. So please get your facts straight before quoting toms :)
and second.. why didnt he overclock the AMD?? huh???
and last...
when the P4ee hit the market the AMD will lower the price
even now the AMD is 100$ less, yess they are selling the AMD64 with a free mobo (a64 + mobo bundle)
from asus and MSI the top mobo with Kt8 with processor is for 570$ that is a 200$ motherboard for 70$ only
and it is the full feature mobo top line
100$ less? LEts do the math! :D Granted it might come with a board but those new boards suck! Very buggy!!!
Lets see
- Opteron 2.0 - $813
- Asus SK8N - $221
Compared to
- Intel 3.2EE - $800 guesstimate
- Intel BOXD875PBZLK - $150 (same features as SK8N)
So $950 (P4) vs $1034 (AMD)
Yeah I know what will get my money! :D
Oh yeah not to mention I dont need REGISTERED RAM :)
Quote:
Originally posted by sna
Conclusion?? ever heared about psycho effect...??? it adds some lights
and second.. why didnt he overclock the AMD?? huh???
and last...
when the P4ee hit the market the AMD will lower the price
even now the AMD is 100$ less, yess they are selling the AMD64 with a free mobo (a64 + mobo bundle)
from asus and MSI the top mobo with Kt8 with processor is for 570$ that is a 200$ motherboard for 70$ only
and it is the full feature mobo top line
The judge of whether something is out is if it is in retail, if its released, wow its out, but.. only 3 shops have it...
Dude, thats not released in the practical usage.
Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
100$ less? LEts do the math! :D
LEts do the reading! :D
Quote:
Originally posted by sna
even now the AMD is 100$ less, yess they are selling the AMD64 with a free mobo (a64 + mobo bundle)
from asus and MSI the top mobo with Kt8 with processor is for 570$ that is a 200$ motherboard for 70$ only
and it is the full feature mobo top line
Hes talking about the A64 mobo bundle, http://www.sharkyforums.com/showthre...hreadid=209294
Well yeah if you want a setup that is slower :DQuote:
Originally posted by Mancora
LEts do the reading! :D
Hes talking about the A64 mobo bundle, http://www.sharkyforums.com/showthre...hreadid=209294
But the 3.2c is going to be low $400 before the end of this month.. So yet again it should still be cheaper then the A64 3200+ which is is about par or slightly faster or slower but depending on usage :)
But hey we can compare prices :D
Abit IC7-G - $175
Intel P4 3.2 - $417 (end of oct)
TOTAL: $592
vs.
A64 + K8T800 - $570
TOTAL: $570 + heatsink :D
So even yet. They are the same price :) Yes I am using the end of this month prices, but oh well :D
No its not the truth its your dumb opinion. Its straight up libel and even though I dislike THG this type of behavior is unacceptable to me.Quote:
Originally posted by sna
NOW COME ON
saying the truth might hurt but it is the TRUTH
This is not how not to cheat, this is how to make a good review in YOUR OPINION.Quote:
Originally posted by sna
First. When you compare two products they BOTH MUST be in the market... also, He overclocked the EE upto 3.6 just to add some extra light to it
All of this Colossus already addressed. Stop spitting out your opinion, especially when its wrong, and accuse anyone of manipulating scores etc. because thats what cheating is, not making a bad review.Quote:
Originally posted by sna
Second there is NO NO price/Performance judgement at all there should be a PRICE weight function to multiply with every result of each test u cant say a -100$ processor wins 15 times and a +100$ wins 30 times while indeed the AMD is lower in most cases by 5% which is better than the 15% price difference
I loke for the EE presales it is a whooping 900$ and the nonee is 600$ compared to AMDfx 750$ and amd64 450$
ADD TO THIS THE FACT THAT THE INTEL IS NOT EVEN RELEASED
??? Are you kidding me?? You need to read more. This isnt THGs doing. this was Intels plan THE WHOLE TIME.Quote:
Originally posted by sna
now if thats not CHEATING and SPOLING AMD RELEASE I wonder what do u call it...
READ: http://www.overclockers.com/articles830/
As I said, you are complaining about a bad review and posting libel material. Grow up. THG puts out some horrible reviews, the people that write them sometimes just dont have the knowledge that they should. But posting accusations of cheating is childish. Cheating would be something like nvidia did with 3dmarks. Cheating would be something like Mac's G5 benchmarking. Cheating WOULD NOT be leaving out information because you dont know any better....Quote:
Originally posted by sna
In other reviews of TOMS he does the opposite.. for example when he compared some LCD monitors or so there was a superior lcd I remember that he didnt include it in the test cos it was not released yet(1 month or so) while he knew it was better (thats fair)
now in this case he ignores it
I call it CHEATING.. or Intel loving
I prefer INTEL and I am not AMD fan but I can see and say the truth